coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant, Agrarian Cooperative “Slobozia Hanesei”, is a Moldovan registered company. It is represented before the Court by Mr G. Botezat, a lawyer practising in Ştefan Vodă.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.  According to the statute of the State-owned company “Moldtranselectro” (“M.”), as modified on 7 November 2000, the company is empowered to consolidate the debts accumulated in the energy sector of Moldova and is responsible both for lodging claims against entities indebted to the former (State) energy companies and for paying the debts that those companies owed to third persons. This is regulated by Law no. 336 on the restructuring of the debt of energy sector companies (see paragraph 13 below). In a letter dated 26 February 2002 the National Agency for Energy Regulation (NAER) stated, inter alia, that in accordance with Law no. 336-XIV (“Law no. 336”, see paragraph 13 below) M. had acquired all debts and claims of legal persons in respect of Red Centru, a State-owned energy company which was privatised after 1999.
9.  The applicant initiated court proceedings against M. and SA Red Centru as a third party. It claimed that SA Red Centru owed it 23,557 Moldovan lei (MDL) since 1999 and that its debts had become the debts of M. by virtue of Law no. 336. On 26 April 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court adopted a judgment by which M. was ordered to pay the applicant MDL 23,557 (1,943 euros (EUR) at the time). The court found that, in accordance with Article 6 of Law no. 336 both the debts of SA Red Centru and the debts owed to it had been transferred to M., as confirmed by an act of verification dated 8 February 2000. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became enforceable on 12 May 2002.
10.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the Bailiff did not enforce. On 27 May 2002 it wrote to the Decision Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice requesting the execution of the judgment and the seizure of its debtor's property. On 1 September 2002 it wrote to “the Government” requesting the latter to take measures to execute the judgment. The applicant received no answer to any of these requests.
11.  The judgment of 26 April 2002 has not been enforced to date. On 26 October 2006 the Parliament adopted the Law concerning the improvement of the economic-financial situation of the State Company “Moldtranselectro” by annulling certain obligations (no. 311-XVI). The law annulled a number of penalties resulting from delays in payments by M. towards the State budget.
5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Bolshaya Markha in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).
6. In 1994 the applicant founded an individual enterprise “Pyramid” (Частное Индивидуальное Предприятие «Пирамида»).
7.  On 15 March 1999 he signed an agreement with a State-owned maintenance company “Department of housing and communal services of Yakutsk” according to which the applicant's company undertook to perform certain construction works for the company. Upon the completion of the works, the maintenance company refused to pay. Following a financial dispute, the parties signed a friendly settlement, according to which the maintenance company owed the applicant's company 43,517 RUR (~ EUR 1,609).
8.  This settlement was confirmed by a judgment of the Commercial Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) delivered on 11 June 2002, and became enforceable.
9.  On 25 March 2003 the bailiffs informed the applicant about the impossibility to enforce the settlement because the maintenance company lacked funds. On 26 March 2003 they closed the enforcement proceedings.
10.  The applicant contested the bailiffs' decision before the Commercial Court of the Republic of Sakha but on 11 July 2003 his application was left without consideration due to the failure to comply with the procedural requirements.
11.  Meanwhile the State-owned maintenance company changed its structure and became a municipal maintenance company (Муниципальное учреждение «Дирекция единого заказчика»).
12.  In March 2004 the applicant retired, liquidated his enterprise and closed its accounts.
4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the town of Korenovsk in the Krasnodar Region. They are former employees of the Architecture and Town Planning Department of the Korenovskiy District Council (hereafter – the Council). The three applicants were employed as engineers, one as a technician and one as a land engineer.
5.  In January 2001 the applicants were dismissed from their positions.
6.  The applicants sued the Council for reinstatement and wage arrears for the period from October 2000 to January 2001.
7.  On 28 March 2001 the Korenovskiy District Court dismissed the applicants' claims for reinstatement but awarded them the amounts listed in the schedule. The judgment became final on 22 May 2001 when the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld it on appeal. The judgment remains unenforced because the Council does not have necessary funds.
8.  The applicants asked the Justice of the Peace of the 153rd Court Circuit of the Korenovskiy District to award them wage arrears for the period from February to April 2001.
9.  On 20 June 2001 the Justice of the Peace accepted their action against the Council and awarded them the amounts listed in the schedule. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
10.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted, but the judgment was not enforced because the Council did not have funds.
11.  On 8 August 2002 the sums awarded by the judgment of 20 June 2001 were credited to the applicants' accounts.
12.  The applicants lodged an action against the Council, complaining that the Council failed to enforce the judgments of 28 March and 20 June 2001. They sought payment of the amounts awarded under those judgments.
13.  On 20 November 2002 the Justice of the Peace held that the Council should pay the applicants compensation for the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 28 March 2001 for the period from 22 May 2001 to 20 November 2002 (the amounts awarded are listed in the schedule). The judgment of 20 November 2002 was upheld on appeal on 24 December 2002.
14.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment of 20 November 2002, as upheld on appeal on 24 December 2002, remains unenforced because the Council does not have funds.
4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1951 respectively and live in Karlovac.
5.  In the period between 11 September 1991 and 13 April 1992 the applicants' restaurant in Karlovac was blown up four times by unknown perpetrators.
6.  On 11 April 1995 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. They relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed (prekid postupka) pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
8.  On 25 June 2001 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 26 September 2003 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.
11.  Meanwhile, on 24 April 2002 the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings and the lack of access to a court. On 26 October 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) accepted the first applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of his constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded him 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 18 November 2004 and its correction on 6 January 2005.
12.  On 31 May 2004 the Municipal Court found that it no longer had jurisdiction in respect of the applicants' claim for pecuniary damages and thus declared that part of their action inadmissible. On 2 November 2004 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) accepted the applicant's appeal, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
13.  In the resumed proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Court scheduled a hearing for 2 December 2004. Since no one appeared at that hearing on the side of the plaintiffs, the court decided to temporarily suspend the proceedings (mirovanje postupka). The applicants appealed against that decision to the Zagreb County Court. On 11 October 2005 that court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance decision.
14.  On 7 March 2005 the applicants requested the continuation of the proceedings. Their request was granted and a hearing was held on 19 January 2006. At that hearing the court invited the applicants to specify their claim within 90 days. The applicants did so on 15 April 2006.
15.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the Municipal Court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the Rostov Region.
7.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.
8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 1,500 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.
10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.
11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 1,500 had been credited into his bank account.
6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the Rostov Region.
7.  On 5 August 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.
8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 1,500 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.
10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.
11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 1,500 had been credited into his bank account.
6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the Rostov Region.
7.  On 7 July 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.
8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.
10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.
11.  On 28 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 3,000 had been credited into his bank account.
6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the Rostov Region.
7.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.
8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
9.  On 7 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Sovetskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don approved the settlement.
10.  On 19 December 2006 the District Court's judgment became final.
11.  By letter of 28 December 2006, the applicant informed the Court that the terms of the settlement had been implemented and that he did not wish to pursue proceedings before the Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in İzmir.
5.  On 11 April 2000 the İzmir State Security Court ordered the confiscation of the applicant's car on the ground that it had been used during the commission of a crime. The applicant did not wish to surrender his car.
6.  On a unspecified date, the İzmir public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant and on 10 July 2001 he filed a bill of indictment with the İzmir Magistrate's Court accusing the applicant of “not obeying the official authorities' order”. He requested that the applicant be punished, pursuant to Article 526 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.
7.  On 17 July 2001 the İzmir Magistrate's Court, without holding a public hearing, issued a penal order pursuant to Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It decided over the content of the case file and sentenced the applicant to three months' imprisonment and a fine of 35,591,400 Turkish liras (TRL). The court then commuted the imprisonment to a fine and sentenced the applicant to a total fine of TRL 249,139,300[1].
8.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant challenged this decision before the İzmir Criminal Court. He requested that the Criminal Court hold a hearing to examine his appeal.
9.  On 24 August 2001, the İzmir Criminal Court upheld the decision of the Magistrate's Court without a hearing, noting that it was in accordance with the law and procedure.
10.  The applicant paid the fine in question on 10 December 2001.
6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the Rostov Region.
7.  On 30 April 2000 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.
8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
9.  On 2 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 1,500 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On 13 December 2006 the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.
10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.
11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 1,500 had been credited into his bank account.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Velingrad.
5.  On 11 November 1999 the applicant was arrested and brought before an investigator who decided to remand him in custody on charges of sexual assault allegedly committed against a minor on 20 October 1999, an offence punishable with up to five years' imprisonment under Article 149 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The investigator's decision was confirmed by a prosecutor.
6.  On 18 November 1999 the investigator conducted searches in the applicant's home.
7.  On 29 March 2000 the applicant was released.
8.  In the course of the investigation a number of witnesses, the alleged victim and the applicant were heard and several forensic and medical reports were drawn up.
9.  On 5 February 2001 the investigator submitted his conclusions to the prosecutor, proposing that the applicant should be indicted for sexual assault.
10.  On 10 April 2001 the District Prosecutor's Office referred the case back to the investigator instructing him to undertake further investigation as to whether the applicant had raped the same girl on 9 November 1999, as alleged by her.
11.  Since the alleged victim had changed her address and could not be located, the investigation could not proceed and was suspended on 1 October 2003.
12.  In October 2003 the case file was transmitted to the district police in Velingrad with instruction to continue seeking the alleged victim's address. It appears that as of September 2006, the date of the latest communication received from the parties, the investigation remained suspended.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kamyshin, the Volgograd Region.
5.  On 26 July 2000 the Kamyshin Town Court of the Volgograd Region (“the Kamyshin Town Court”) allowed the applicant's civil claim for defamation against the Prosecutor's Office of the Volgograd Region and awarded her 300 Russian roubles (“RUR”). The award was payable by the Treasury of the Russian Federation. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 7 August 2000.
6.  On 28 August 2000 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' service.
7.  On 30 August 2000 the bailiffs' service returned the writ of execution to the court because it did not have the debtor's address. It asked the court to re-submit a corrected version within ten days.
8.  On 10 September 2000 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the writ of execution had not been re-submitted.
9.  On 3 October 2000 the applicant was told that the writ had been returned to the court on 30 August 2000.
10.  On 20 November 2003, following the applicant's request, the bailiffs' service informed her of the decision of 10 September 2000 to discontinue the enforcement proceedings.
11.  On 15 April 2005 the amount of RUR 300 was transferred into the applicant's account.
12.  On 25 June 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 14th Court Circuit of the Kamyshinskiy District of the Volgograd Region partly allowed the applicant's civil action against the municipal housing maintenance enterprise of Kamyshin (муниципальное предприятие “Жилищное управление“ г. Камышина). It ordered that the municipal enterprise should perform certain maintenance works in the applicant's room within ten days after the judgment becomes final. In particular, it should repair and whitewash the ceiling and paint the floor. The court also awarded the applicant RUR 200 for non-pecuniary damage.
13.  On 12 September 2003 the Kamyshin Town Court upheld the judgment on appeal; the judgment became enforceable.
14.  The municipal enterprise performed the maintenance works in accordance with the judgment but did not pay the monetary award.
15.  On 15 June 2004 the Commercial Court of the Volgograd Region initiated insolvency proceedings against the debtor.
16.  On 6 August 2004 the court issued a new writ of execution and sent it to the bailiffs' service. Enforcement proceedings commenced and the applicant's name was placed on the list of creditors in the insolvency proceedings.
17.  By a letter of 9 August 2004, the President of the Kamyshin Town Court informed the applicant that in September 2003 the writ of execution had been handed over to a bailiff who had subsequently lost it.
18.  On 15 April 2005 the municipal enterprise transferred the amount of RUR 200 into the applicant's account.
19.  On 16 September 2005 the amount of RUR 5 charged by the bank for the transfers (see paragraphs 11 and 18 above) was reimbursed to the applicant.
4.  The applicants were born in 1930 and 1934 respectively and live in Irkutsk.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 22 December 1986 the Irkutsk regional administration ordered expropriation of the applicants' plot of land, house and certain constructions in the public interest and transferred them to the State enterprise “Vostok”. The actual transfer took place in 1992.
7.  On 27 January 1993 the first applicant reached an agreement with “Vostok” by which the enterprise undertook to move the applicant's garage and cellar to his new place of residence. By a decision of the same date, the Sverdlovskiy District Court of the Irkutsk Region approved the agreement. It was later invalidated by domestic courts.
8.  On 22 September 1995 the Sverdlovskiy District Court allowed the applicants' civil claims against “Vostok” and awarded them compensation for the expropriated property. The applicants did not specify the amount awarded. It appears that the judgment became binding and enforceable on 2 October 1995.
9.  On 1 November 1996 and 13 March 2001 the District Court adjusted the award under the judgment of 22 September 1995 in line with the inflation.
10.  According to the judgments of 22 September 1995, 1 November 1996 and 13 March 2001, the federal State unitary enterprise “Vostok” (федеральное государственное унитарное предприятие “Восток”) was to pay 72,502.20 Russian roubles (“RUR”) to the first applicant and RUR 4,856.30 to the second applicant.
11.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings and placed the applicants on the waiting list, along with many others creditors of “Vostok”.
12.  On 28 January 2002 the Commercial Court of the Irkutsk Region started insolvency proceedings against “Vostok”.
13.  On 24 February 2004 the bailiff passed the enforcement documents to the company receiver.
14.  On an unspecified date the applicants brought civil proceedings against the Irkutsk City Administration, claiming that the Administration should be liable for the debts of the State enterprise.
15.  On 3 December 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk dismissed their claim as having no basis in the domestic law. On 30 January 2004 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
16.  It appears that the judgments of 22 September 1995, 1 November 1996 and 13 March 2001 have not been enforced to date, and that the insolvency proceedings against “Vostok” are still pending.